News

By: Mark Pomerleau The Marine Corps is creating new network battalions and companies in an effort to improve oversight and the command and control of its network. These new organizations — described as a “huge, huge deal” — are part of an effort to reduce the number of organizations charged with network functions. The move will also allow for more accurate readiness reporting, said Col. Ed Debish, commanding officer of the Marine Corps Cyberspace Operations Group. “Currently, we have six different commands that have something to do with managing the Marine Corps Enterprise Network,” he said at a Jan. 31 lunch hosted by the AFCEA Quantico chapter. Now, one commander — the head of Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace Command — will oversee and manage these groups. “Primarily, what they're going to do is deliver enterprise business services down to the end user device," Debish told C4ISRNET following his remarks. "They're also going to be responsible for managing the BAN and LAN — the building area networks and the local area networks on the bases and stations around the Marine Corps.” The new commands will absorb the organizations that previously performed many of these functions, including the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Information Technology (IT) Support Centers, or MITSCs. “The problem that it was designed to solve was unity of command and unity of effort on the Marine Corps Enterprise Network. It's going to give us visibility all the way down to the end user device where we didn't have that visibility before,” he said. The arrangement will also help Marines better understand readiness of the network. Previously, it could be difficult to determine what equipment was working and part of the network. Now, with one command, those assessments should be easier, Debish said, as they'll be managed under a single entity. Additionally, the new organizations will help with one of the Marine Corps' top IT priorities: to deploy its network abroad in a more agile and mobile way. “The idea is to move that enterprise capability to the tactical edge with the deploying force,” Debish said. “If you were to just remotely connect back into the enterprise network, you're going over a VPN connection to a data center somewhere that might be thousands of miles removed from it. But if you lost that connection, then what happens? You don't have any access to any of your data or your network.” The first battalion will be created this year at Camp Pendleton. The battalion commander will assume command around April. The first company is expected to be created this year and be based out of Marine Corps Forces Europe/Africa, located in Germany. Next year, leaders expect to create the second and third network battalions at Camp Lejeune and Okinawa, respectively. https://www.c4isrnet.com/newsletters/daily-brief/2020/02/03/how-the-marine-corps-wants-to-improve-oversight-of-its-network/

By: David B. Larter ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER GERALD R. FORD IN THE VIRGINIA CAPES — The U.S. Navy is trying to find an alternative to shooting down anti-ship missiles with other missiles, and the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford could prove useful in this pursuit. A major difference with Ford over its Nimitz-class predecessors is its twin A1B nuclear reactors that produce more than three times the electrical power of the reactors on Nimitz — more than 100 megawatts. That means Ford, with survivability questions looming over aircraft carriers, can support large, power-sucking equipment such as lasers, according to Capt. J.J. Cummings, the Ford' commanding officer. “When you talk about innovation in the Navy, this is where it lives,” Cummings said, referring to his ship. “We're lighter — designed lighter — than Nimitz class. “Nimitz class, she's barreling down pretty good now with a lot of stuff on her, and her electric plant is almost at maximum capacity. We're light and designed to have excess capacity in our electrical system to bring future systems on board.” That's a big advantage for the class, and it's one of the reasons the Navy has pursued the Ford class despite the controversies over buggy new technology and cost overruns. The Ford class is essential for the survivability of carriers, said James Geurts, the Navy's top acquisition official. “Part of the reason Ford is so important is that it gives you the flexibility to generate the next generation of systems you'll need to ensure the carrier can continue to stay survivable,” Geurts said. Killing missiles with missiles Bryan Clark, a retired naval officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said Ford could use a boost in the survivability department and the Ford's powerful reactors could help them get there. “To improve the self-defense on carriers, you could put lasers on there to support that short-range, self-defense capacity,” Clark said. “Because the big problem with lasers right now is power management. You can build a three or four hundred-kilowatt laser, but for one, it's a big footprint so you have to find a ship big enough to put it on; and two, you have to have the power to actually supply it. So you're going to need a capacitor bank somewhere on the ship or you need a generator big enough to provide it continuously. On the Ford, you'd get that." Clark has argued for years that the Navy needs to get away from trying to shoot down missiles with missiles because a saturation attack from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or anyone else who might have cause to attack a U.S. Navy ship could force a cruiser or destroyer to expend all its missiles and still not have defeated the threat. That's where shorter-range missiles such as the Evolved Seasparrow Missile, which can be packed four per cell in a vertical launch system, and lasers can have a big impact, even if it means the ship has to let missiles get uncomfortably close to the ship before it's taken down. “I think lasers could make a difference for Ford because the technology is pretty mature, you could fit it on the ship and it would address a big challenge for carriers, which is air defense,” Clark said. “You could put several lasers on there and really give a boost to your air defense capacity.” However, it's unlikely lasers could address all threats faced by carriers, Clark said. “It would be effective for cruise missiles up to maybe the supersonic cruise missiles,” Clark said. “Of course, it would also work against small boats and things like that. It may not work that well against hypersonic missiles or ballistic missiles.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/31/with-laser-weapons-coming-the-us-navys-newest-super-carrier-has-space-and-power-to-spare/

Le Pavillon France, fédéré par le Groupement des Industries de Construction et Activités Navales (GICAN) en collaboration avec le Groupement des Industries Françaises Aéronautiques et Spatiales (GIFAS), accueillera 11 entreprises sur Defexpo, salon international qui se déroulera à Lucknow en Inde du 5 au 9 février 2020. La représentation française au salon indien Defexpo est assurée par la présence de 19 entreprises représentantes de l'industrie de défense française. Il s'agit de grands groupes, mais également PME et ETI dynamiques. Cette présence marque ainsi le fort engagement de l'industrie française de la défense pour soutenir les forces armées indiennes. Les entreprises présentes sur le Pavillon France (Hall 3, stands R16 à R24, S18 et S19) sont : Arquus – Etienne Lacroix Group – Lynred – Rafale International – Rafaut Group – Roxel – RTSYS – Safran – Schneider Electric – Thales – Wartsilä Navy France. Par ailleurs, plusieurs sociétés françaises exposeront sur leur propre stand (Airbus – MBDA – Naval Group et Nexter), ou sous pavillon indien (Amphenol Interconnect – Axon'Cable – Nicomatic – Nucon Alkan – Trigo), signe de leur forte implantation dans le pays. Des rencontres entre industriels français et donneurs d'ordre indiens sont programmées tout au long de la semaine. Les industries aéronautiques, spatiales et navales françaises, rassemblées par le GIFAS et le GICAN, soutiennent la politique du «Make in India», dans les domaines de l'aéronautique, de la construction navale et de la défense. Dans cette optique, le GIFAS, le GICAN et la Society of Indian Defence Manufacturers (SIDM) organiseront un séminaire le 5 février à 15h30 dans le Seminar Hall 2. L'intention est de développer davantage le partenariat industriel entre les entreprises françaises et indiennes à tous les niveaux de la chaîne de production. Les relations stratégiques entre la France et l'Inde dans l'industrie aérospatiale sont pérennes (depuis plus de 70 ans). En 2018, une présence permanente du GIFAS en Inde a été établie à New-Delhi pour renforcer ce partenariat stratégique et développer les relations industrielles entre l'Inde et la France. En 2019, 60 membres du GIFAS sont implantés en Inde, représentant plus de 75 établissements, 20 partenariats en joint-venture et plus de 25 sites de production. https://www.aerobuzz.fr/breves-defense/forte-presence-des-industriels-francais-au-salon-indien-defexpo-2020/

Tucson will become the new headquarters for a combined business unit made up of Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems and a Massachusetts-based Raytheon business when parent Raytheon Co. and United Technologies Corp. finalize their merger. A Raytheon Missile Systems spokesman confirmed Friday that Tucson will become headquarters for the new Raytheon Missiles & Defense business, which will combine Missile Systems and Raytheon Integrated Defense, now headquartered in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. “We shared with our employees that upon merger close, our consolidated businesses will be named Raytheon Missiles & Defense and Raytheon Intelligence & Space," Raytheon spokesman John Patterson said. "They'll be headquartered in Tucson, Arizona and Arlington, Virginia respectively. We look forward to sharing more information once the merger closes — anticipated early in the second quarter of this year.” Raytheon — Southern Arizona's largest employer — announced in late October that Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon Missile Systems since last March, will become president of the combined missile and integrated defense unit as part of the merged parent company, which will be called Raytheon Technologies Corp. Raytheon Intelligence & Space will be formed from Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems and Intelligence, Information and Services units, and UTC Mission Systems and Raytheon's Forcepoint cybersecurity unit. Together with two of UTC's current businesses — engine maker Pratt & Whitney and Collins Aerospace — they will form the four main business units of the merged company. But the company said it would not announce the headquarters location of the new business units until the merger was finalized. The so-called "merger of equals" will create an aerospace and defense behemoth with annual revenues of $74 billion, second only to Boeing in the industry. Raytheon and United Technologies shareholders have approved the merger of the two companies, which is also contingent on United Technologies' successful spinoff of its Carrier heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business and its Otis Elevator subsidiary. The deal is also subject to federal anti-trust approval, which is expected after the Defense Department said it had few concerns about the merger. Raytheon is the Tucson region's largest employer with about 13,000 local workers. The company has been working to expand its campus at Tucson International Airport amid a plan to add more than 2,000 jobs. Raytheon also has significant operations at the University of Arizona Tech Park. The company makes many of the nation's front-line defense systems, including the Tomahawk cruise missile and the Standard Missile series of ship-defense and ballistic missile interceptors, and more recently has been working on hypersonic missiles and laser weapons to defeat drones and other threats. https://tucson.com/news/local/raytheon-chooses-tucson-for-headquarters-of-combined-missiles-defense-unit/article_ee884dfe-4489-11ea-8617-6b5185c6107b.html

By: Mark Pomerleau BAE Systems was awarded a pair of contracts worth $300 million that will support the Navy in digital endeavors. The first is a $212 million contract from the Navy's Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division to integrate and sustain critical communications systems. As part of the contract, BAE will design, acquire, integrate and test radio systems for new guided missile destroyers specifically, as well as other unspecified Navy and Coast Guard ships. The second contract is a $104.7 award from the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division for engineering and technical services for command, control, communications, computers, combat systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems both afloat and ashore. “Maintaining reliable lines of communication and situational awareness for those at the forefront of national security is a mission-critical priority for BAE Systems and our customers,” said Mark Keeler, vice president and general manager of BAE Systems' Integrated Defense Solutions business. “We're proud to continue supporting the integration of combat systems and solutions for the U.S. Navy as they defend against advanced air, surface, and subsurface threats.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2020/02/03/navy-awards-300m-for-c5isr-and-radio-systems

By John A. Tirpak The F-35 fleet is safe to fly, despite an unknown number of under-strength fasteners being used to build critical areas of the jet, Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief Ellen Lord said Jan. 31. Lockheed Martin workers mixed up titanium and Inconel bolts during manufacture of the F-35, and the Defense Contract Management Agency told Air Force Magazine neither the company nor the Joint Program Office knew how many aircraft were affected, or how far back the problem started. It said the whole fleet of 400-plus F-35s could potentially be affected. The titanium fasteners are lighter than the Inconel parts, and also have less shear strength. Lockheed is to present its 70-day root cause analysis of the “quality escape” to the government in February. At a press conference to discuss cyber security rules for Pentagon contractors, Lord said she had “looked at samples of that issue”—meaning the mixed-up fasteners—and said “right now we have assessed that there is no structural compromise of the aircraft.” She said the root cause analysis continues. “The JPO is working closely with Lockheed; we will continue to asses if there are any issues, but we have confidence in the integrity of the aircraft at this point.” Deliveries of the F-35 were halted briefly in November when the issue was discovered. A Lockheed spokeswoman said barrels of the two fasteners, which are visually similar and differ only in a number stamped into them, were mixed up at the company's Ft. Worth, Texas, factory, as well as the Final Assembly and Check-Out facility in Italy, though not at the FACO in Japan. Titanium fasteners were installed in places where the Inconel parts were specified, and vice versa. An inspection of some number of aircraft—it did not disclose how many—led the company to conclude the problem is not widespread, and there is no plan in the works to conduct fleetwide inspections. Each F-35 has some 50,000 fasteners, of which about 1.7 percent are supposed to be made of Inconel. The F-35C Navy version requires 3.5 percent Inconel fasteners because of the greater size and loads on that airplane. Lord said she's looking for “continuous improvement” in F-35 production, and reported seeing “incredible strides” in its quality over the last two-and-a-half years. However, “I think this is a journey that we will be on for the entire life of the F-35.” She expects Lockheed will continue to improve, “month over month, quarter over quarter, and year over year.” https://www.airforcemag.com/lord-says-f-35s-safe-despite-fastener-problem

By Steve Trimble The U.S. Air Force has released the full, sweeping vision for the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), a two-year-old concept that proposes to disrupt modern norms for the service's command-and-control doctrine, military acquisition policy and industrial participation. The newly released ABMS architecture defines not a traditional program of record but 28 new “product lines” divided into six major components. The implementation strategy is not focused around traditional acquisition milestones measured in years, but rather development “sprints” fielding morsels of new capabilities every four months. The rights for much of the technology, including a new radar, communication gateway and software-defined radio, are claimed not by an industrial supplier, but by the Air Force itself. USAF adopts lead systems integrator-like model ABMS architecture built on government ownership The release of the strategy on Jan. 21 comes three weeks before the Air Force plans to release a budget plan that would shift $9 billion over the next five years for a “Connect the Joint Force” initiative. The proposed funding would come from retiring certain capabilities, including aircraft fleets, within the next five years, with a clear implication: The Air Force is willing, if Congress approves, to trade some capability now to obtain the ABMS over time. “I think of it as we're finally building the ‘Internet of Things' inside the military, something that is very overdue,” says Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, explaining the ABMS to journalists during the unveiling of the architecture in the Pentagon. The scale of the project's ambition has evolved since the ABMS was first proposed in 2018. Air Force leaders unveiled the concept two years ago as a replacement for the airborne Battle Management and Command and Control (BMC2) suite on the Northrop Grumman E-8C Joint Stars fleet. By September 2018, Roper first suggested the same technology could be applied to replace the aging fleet of Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joints and, sometime in the 2030s, the Boeing E-3C Airborne Warning and Control System. Those aims remain intact, but the revealed architecture clarifies that the goals of the ABMS are far broader. If the system is fully realized, the Air Force will create a “combat cloud” on a mobile ad hoc network, transposing the Internet of Things model from civilian technology to the battlefield. As a result, the nearly four-decade-old concept of a centralized command-and-control center—either ground-based or airborne—would be swept away by a future, decentralized digital network. Using computer processors and software algorithms instead of humans, machines would identify targets from sensor data, select the weapons and platforms to prosecute the target automatically, and finally notify the human operator when—or, crucially, whether—to pull the trigger. Roper compares the ABMS' effect on command and control to commercial services on a smartphone, such as the Waze app for drivers navigating traffic. Waze is not driven by a human staff monitoring and reporting traffic hazards, who then review each request for directions and customize a recommended route. Instead, Waze harvests traffic and hazard data from its users, while algorithms mine that information to respond to user requests for services. The Air Force's command-and-control system is constructed around the human staff model, but Roper wants to move the entire enterprise to the Waze approach. “If it didn't exist in the world around us, you'd probably say it was impossible,” Roper says, “but it does [exist].” The challenge for the Air Force is to defend and, if successful, execute that vision for the ABMS. The Air Force needs to secure the support of the other armed services, whose participation is vital to extracting the benefits of such a system. Moreover, the Air Force needs to sell the concept to Congress, despite a system that lacks obvious employment connections to specific legislative districts, such as future factory sites and operational bases. Roper acknowledges the problem of building support for an architecture, rather than a platform, such as a new fighter, bomber or ship. “Those are easy things to sell in this town. You can count them,” he says. “But the internet is not something that's easy to count or quantify, even though we're all very aware of its power.” The Air Force has briefed congressional defense committee staffs on the ABMS concept, but some remain skeptical. A Capitol Hill staffer familiar with the ABMS program doubts that other services will support the Air Force's vision. The ABMS model also appears unlikely to be embraced by industry, the staffer says. A key point of Roper's plan requires companies to cede some intellectual property rights on key elements of the ABMS architecture to the Air Force. But the Air Force is not waiting. Development of the ABMS started last year, even before an analysis of alternatives is completed. In December, the service staged the first demonstration of four new capabilities: transmitting data on a low-probability of intercept link via a gateway between stealthy Air Force and nonstealthy Navy fighters; connecting a C-130 to the SpaceX Starlink satellite constellation; demonstrating a cloud-based, command-and-control network up to a “secret” classification level; and setting up an unclassified common operational picture display at a remote command center inside a tent. As the second in the planned series of triannual events, the Air Force plans to stage the next ABMS demonstration in April, this time involving U.S. Space Force, Strategic Command and Northern Command. Roper, an Oxford-trained physicist, has little patience for the military's traditional development process, although he has made exceptions for complex, hardware-driven programs, such as the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. For most other programs, Roper wants to trickle out new features at Silicon Valley-speed. A common refrain by military acquisition reformers for decades has been to emphasize delivering an incomplete, “80% solution” sooner than waiting for a system that meets each of sometimes hundreds of detailed requirements. However, for Roper the timeline for delivering even an 80% solution in certain cases is far too long. “[We should] covet the 10-15% solutions that take the next step forward,” Roper said. “Because the learning in that step is so valuable to keep the velocity.” To execute the ABMS vision, Roper appointed Preston Dunlap last year as the lead architect. Unlike a traditional program executive officer (PEO), the architect is a role introduced to the Air Force by Roper, who previously in his career served as the chief architect for the Missile Defense Agency. The six components and 28 production lines for the ABMS are spread across multiple program offices, rather than consolidated under a single PEO. Thus, the role of the architect is to define the vision and then shape acquisition schedules as the various technologies reach maturity. Under Dunlap's architecture, the ABMS is built around six components: new sensors feeding databases in a cloud-based computing environment using software-defined radios, with new apps fusing the data into a common operational picture and integrated effects allowing cruise missiles, for example, to automatically retask sensors on other platforms during flight. Among the 28 product lines, the Air Force proposes to own the rights to the radar, software-defined radio and communications gateway. The Air Force's role resembles the lead systems integrator (LSI) model used for a series of largely failed acquisition programs 15-20 years ago, including the Army's Future Combat System and Coast Guard's Deepwater. In this case, however, the LSI is the Air Force, not an industrial supplier. Such an approach is not unprecedented. The Navy is using a similar model to manage the MQ-25A program, with Boeing selected as a subcontractor to deliver the air vehicle and Naval Air Systems Command providing the ground station and integrating both on an aircraft carrier. The gateway used in the first ABMS demonstration in December offers an example, Roper says. “We took a radio system that was actually built in concert with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to be able to deal with both platforms with the waveforms, and then a Honeywell antenna was able to speak across the frequencies associated with both radio systems,” Roper said. “So we got those three primary vendors working together underneath our government leadership.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/us-air-force-defines-radical-vision-command-control

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — In 2017, the top two officials at the Pentagon — then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford — testified to Congress that the defense budget needs to have 3-5 percent annual growth over inflation each year through 2023 to ensure America's military success. Dunford, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2017, went as far as to say: “We know now that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today, and we can't assume our adversaries will remain still." Three years later, as the Trump administration prepares to unveil its fiscal 2021 budget request on Feb. 10, such growth appears impossible. The budget is expected to be largely flat, as a two-year budget deal reached last summer calls for $740 billion in defense spending in the next fiscal year, up just $2 billion from the enacted FY20 amount. “The 3-5 percent goal was reasonable enough and absolutely needed,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a budget analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. “But it is not happening. The defense top line for 2021 is negative real growth, aka declining.” Susanna Blume, a defense analyst with the Center for a New American Security, said that certain parts of the defense budget, particularly maintenance and personnel costs, grow faster than the rate of inflation. “That's what's behind these comments about requiring a certain amount of real budget growth in order to sustain the joint force as it is today,” she said. But there is a wild card, according to Ellen Lord, the Defense Department's top acquisition official: a series of reform efforts led by now-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, which so far have accounted for $5 billion in savings. “We're getting more and more efficient. That is obviously what Secretary Esper is focused on with his defensewide review, that we are cutting out administrative tasks and a variety of portions of programs to make sure we return those savings to our critical modernization efforts such as [artificial intelligence], hypersonics and so forth,” Lord said during a Jan. 31 news conference at the Pentagon. “We are always having to look very carefully at our budgets and make sure we triage them to focus on the critical few. So we're always concerned, but we're always going to work it.” How much of that expected growth gap can be filled by Esper's efficiency drive is difficult to pin down. Blume said its “certainly possible that efficiencies could make up some of that gap,” but whether the work that has been done now and is planned in the near term will be enough “are questions we don't have answers to today.” Added Eaglen: “Efficiencies alone will not get the Pentagon its 3-5 percent growth in actual dollars to reinvest. The defensewide review only yielded $5 billion, and the way it works with these drills is that the money doesn't necessarily move from pot A to pot B as a result." “But that doesn't mean it is not worth doing. Any money amount is helpful. And the exercise is also about getting the bureaucracy to shift its time, tasks and attention to great power competition as much as it's about shifting funds into higher priorities that support the strategy,” Eaglen said. If one of the Pentagon's big bets work out, that could be a real game-changer, Blume said. Those bets include efforts to replace a Defense Logistics Agency warehouse using a 3D printer as well as attempts by the Air Force to rapidly develop, prototype and produce fleets of planes. If one of them goes well, Blume said, “you can potentially start to bend some of those cost curves.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/01/31/the-pentagon-is-racing-against-inflation-for-military-might/

By: David B. Larter ABOARD THE CARRIER GERALD R. FORD IN THE VIRGINIA CAPES — Capt. J.J. Cummings is literally jumping up and down with excitement. “Ahhhhhh I love that s---!” he shouts as the roar of an F/A-18 Super Hornet's twin engines fades into the distance. The fighter jet's low flyby a few hundred yards off the port side of the U.S. Navy's most expensive-ever warship is a loud reminder that the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford isn't a construction project anymore. For Cummings, the ship's Massachusetts-born commanding officer, and for the ship's crew, Ford is now a living, breathing warship with jets operating from its $13 billion flight deck. “I could watch flybys all day,” the career fighter pilot said Jan. 27 during a visit by Defense News aboard the vessel. Standing on the deck of the first-in-class Ford, Cummings is showing off the major redesign of the flight deck, which expanded the available space to maneuver and refit fighters to get back in the air. “This spot right here is what defines the Ford class,” he said, stopping in front of the in-deck refueling stations. “On the Nimitz class, if you want to refuel an aircraft you have to pull a hose across the flight deck and you can't drive over it so you can't maneuver aircraft the way you might like. “Now you just open this hatch, pull the aircraft up and hook up right here.” The redesigned flight deck, which was developed in consultation with NASCAR pit engineers, gives the Ford an extra half acre of real estate over its predecessors. The extra space is key to the Navy's newest platform, built from the keel up to maximize how efficiently the ship can generate sorties, as well as be adaptable to new aircraft and weapons systems over time. But the 23 new technologies incorporated into the Ford, while making the ship a technological marvel, have also been the cause of ongoing controversy as delays and cost overruns marred the program. Over the coming year, Ford will be underway 11 times over 220 days, working out the kinks, training sailors and writing the book on how the new class of carriers will operate. In the mind of the Cummings, that puts his crew in the history books. “What the American people should know is that this ship is absolutely amazing, and our crew is even more amazing than that,” Cummings said. “What people should know is that we are, no kidding, pioneers in naval aviation. Every [major] system on this ship is different from Nimitz class, so these people are pioneers. We're writing the book for the Ford class for the rest of history.” One of the enabling technologies to help them increase sortie generation is the advanced weapons elevators. The system is designed to cut the time it takes to move bombs from lower decks — where they are assembled and tested — to the flight deck for arming the Super Hornets. Delays with that technology contributed to the downfall of former Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer and have been the latest in a long line of headaches caused by new technologies the Navy packed into the Ford. To date, four of the planned 11 advanced weapons elevators work as advertised. As secretary, Spencer made a public pledge to have the weapons elevators ready by last summer, but now they may not all work until 2021, delays he blamed on shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries. Ensuring the Ford's readiness has been a major focus of the acting Navy secretary, Thomas Modly. For Modly, the continued troubles with the Ford are hurting the organization. "There is nothing worse than having a ship like that, our most expensive asset, being out there as a metaphor for why the Navy can't do anything right,” Modly said at a December U.S. Naval Institute forum. 'Managing the complexity' The high-level attention on Ford, which has become a favorite topic of President Donald Trump when he talks about major defense programs, has made the Navy eager to highlight efforts dedicated to preparing the ship for theater operations. For the crew and officers, many of the headaches come from managing the sheer number of new technologies on the ship, said Cmdr. Mehdi Akacem, the air boss on Ford. “The biggest challenge is managing the complexity,” Akacem said. “I think there is more technical complexity packed into this ship than the Apollo program. I learn so much every day, I have to constantly refocus on what's in my lane. “There are so many new systems. ... The challenge is sustaining that focus on one new thing after another. I don't think there are any five people who understand all the complexity on this ship, all these technical challenges happening in parallel.” That has made it difficult to develop maintenance and qualification procedures for the crew. However, slowly but surely the crew is figuring it out, Akacem said. “One of the parts of the overall system that's still maturing is the maintenance documentation, the technical manuals, parts lists, periodicity of preventive maintenance,” Akacem said. “One of the neat modifications on the Advanced Arresting Gear, very simple to look at but a huge time saver: We used to have to take the system offline, climb into the Advanced Arresting Gear, climb all around it with a grease gun to go grease the bearings," he added. “Now there is a manifold so the sailor can just walk up with a gun — pump, pump, pump and done. And it saves about 45 minutes out of the grease process. Those are the kinds of things we've learned through the post-shakedown availability.” That's what the officers and crew of Ford hope to figure out this year: How does this ship work, and what is the best way to man and maintain it? And for sailors, the only way to figure that out is to get the ship underway. “All good things come from ships at sea,” Akacem said. “We've sat around and philosophized about, ‘Well, can we get by with less?' or ‘Do we need more here?' Now we're proving that out." “With the Advanced Arresting Gear — that's probably where the steepest learning curve exists for our sailors — we were feeling overwhelmed the first couple days with preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and a bunch of the technical preparations. But our level of uncertainty has gone down so much in just a couple of weeks,” he added. “Just the confidence growth has been tremendous.” The learning process has even led to some firsts for the Navy, said Cummings. “We have aviation boatswains mates — typically some our roughest, toughest people up here — and we're making them be electricians and fiber-optics experts, which is a different theme," the ship's commanding officer explained. “So now we're putting [interior communications specialists] into the air department, which is a first. So now you have your ICs, who are your techie fiber-optics people, with your hardcore, hydraulic fluid-drinking, grease-wearing hard-chargers. It's a very interesting mix in the air department," he added. “So is the manning right? Absolutely not. We're still figuring it out. Some of these systems are a little immature, and we're figuring it out, but it's going to take time.” A training challenge A major hurdles for the crew has been getting sailors trained and qualified to operate, maintain and fix their own gear, Cummings said. “Self-repair: That's a challenge” he said. “The ability to get underway, operate and fix our gear ourselves without having to pull in and bring in tech reps out from all over.” In the absence of new schoolhouses, which are on the way, sailors have relied on shore-based testing sites and simulators from vendors for training, Cummings said. “It's a challenge. The infrastructure to train up our sailors — well, it's coming and we're working toward that end,” he said. “[There's] a lot of on-the-job training." As far as schools, General Atomics will host sailors at Rancho Bernardo, a neighborhood in San Diego, California. From there, the sailors will have access to a simulator to practice catapult launches. The Navy will also send sailors to the test site for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear in Lakehurst, New Jersey. “The schoolhouses are coming, but it's a challenge. We're a first-in-class, we get a lot of Nimitz-class stock projected on to our ship, but it doesn't work for our ship,” Cummings explained. Another challenge has been rack space. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the Navy is 100 racks short of what it would need to house a full crew and air wing. And while that isn't an immediate issue for this event, it could prove a problem closer to its first deployment. But Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement that the ship has what it needs for its first deployment already. “The ship's bunks will be sufficient to meet ship's crew, air wing, and embarked staff requirements for first deployment, based on overall berthing numbers identified in the manpower estimates for the Gerald R. Ford class,” NAVSEA said in a statement. “For ship's crew, specifically, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is designed to operate with hundreds fewer Sailors than required on the Nimitz class.” ‘Off and running' But for all the myriad issues that come from fielding a radically different first-in-class ship, Cummings and his crew are jazzed about how it's performing. Many of the key technologies, such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and the Advanced Arresting Gear have performed remarkably well — a significant improvement over some of the bugs the ship faced when aircraft started landing on and launching from the carrier in 2017. “I just spoke to some of the first ones to use the flight deck back in 2017 and 2018: exponential improvement in performance,” Cummings said. “For the catapult, we smoothed out many of the software issues and tolerances. We reduced those tolerances to a right number and we've had very few issues with the catapults. “Our Advanced Arresting Gear is performing spectacularly. A couple hiccups here and there, a quick reset: off and running.” Ford has been using its time at sea to develop wind envelopes for all the aircraft currently flying in the fleet. The process included generating a series of wind conditions, launching and landing an aircraft, and downloading the technical data; then rinse and repeat. “By the time we pull in at the end of January, every fleet aircraft — C-2, E-2D, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Growler and T-45 (our jet trainer) — will be validated to be given their full envelopes for these aircraft to go on deployment or to train our young aviators,” Cummings said. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will ultimately be integrated into the ship, which is a matter of reconfiguring some spaces to handle classified materials and storing parts, among other things, but the ship will not deploy with the jet at first. As the ship keeps to a breakneck schedule over the next year, Cummings hopes to rack up a significant number of “cats and traps” (meaning individual catapult launches and recoveries) to get a stronger idea of how the ship will stand up to the crushing operations tempo of a carrier on deployment. “Our goal is to get about 7,000-8,000 cats and traps to figure out: ‘Hey, what's going to break?' ” he said. “What parts do we need on order?' Let's refine our procedures. So through post-delivery test and trial period, that's our goal. And with an embarked air wing in the April time frame, we're going to be able to start getting after that. We've got a big year ahead of us." The Ford is doing about 10-15 traps per day as it works through the data set, and ultimately it should have about 1,000 by the time it pulls back in at the end of January, Cummings said. To get to that 7,000-8,000 goal, the Navy must get its student pilots lots of traps on Ford. “For the Next year, the only carrier on the East Coast able to provide carrier qualification capability is the Gerald R. Ford,” Cummings said. “When we get our flight deck certified in March, after that we're going straight into carrier qualifications. So all year, any chance we can: ‘Hey, bring 'em out because we need some time in the batting cage. Hit off the tee and see where we have holes in our swing.' ” The post-delivery test and trial period is supposed to last 18 months. After PDT&T, the ship is headed to full-ship shock trials, where live explosives are set off next to the ship to see how the class stands up to shock damage. Navy officials previously testified the entire process could delay the Ford's deployment by up to a year. So taking a year to conduct the trials, then fix all the broken crockery: That would allow Ford to enter the 7.5-month carrier predeployment workup cycle in the second half of 2022, and then it would likely be able to deploy by mid-2023. So, after years of delays, cost overruns and controversy, the ship is finally getting into its groove. And that's the message Cummings wants to send over the next year of operations. “This ship is kick-ass,” Cummings said. “I came here a year and a half ago, I heard all the stories, heard from the critics, came here, and they were all wrong in their assumption about our ship. What people should know is that this ship is amazing.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/30/the-carrier-ford-is-trying-to-shake-years-of-controversy-and-find-its-groove/